Missed opportunities for person-centered communication: implications for staff-resident interactions in long-term care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social interactions in long-term care settings between staff and residents with dementia have been characterized as task-oriented, patronizing, and/or overly directive. Long-term care settings can be contexts that emphasize dependency and threaten the personal identity of older residents. Yet, leaders in the long-term care sector have acknowledged recently that dementia care must move beyond the completion of caregiving tasks and adopt a person-centered approach. This approach involves caregivers incorporating a resident's life history and preferences during interactions. The objectives of this study were to examine the extent to which staff-resident communication is person-centered and the extent to which staff miss opportunities to communicate with residents in a person-centered manner. METHODS: Conversations (N = 46) of 13 staff-resident dyads were audio-recorded during routine care tasks over 12 weeks. Staff utterances within these conversations were coded for person-centered communication and missed opportunities where person-centered communication could have been used. RESULTS: Findings revealed a common communication sequence where utterances coded as person-centered were followed by utterances coded as missed opportunities. This sequence suggests that the positive impact of person-centered communication may be undermined when such communication is followed by missed opportunities. Data also revealed that missed opportunities highlight the need for staff training. CONCLUSION: The findings underscore the importance of sustaining person-centered communication while completing routine care tasks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".